Wild About Writing

I thought I’d have a day away from politics when I booked three seats on the SS Segwun for a cruise of Lake Muskoka today (October 8th). I wanted my cousins from Australia to see what Cottage Country looks like.

But when I heard on the news this morning that Britain was pouring $200 billion into taking over its biggest banks, and that central banks around the world were cutting interest rates, it was clear that no matter where I went, I wouldn’t escape the turmoil.

We boarded the Segun at Gravenhurst just before noon, with a slight drizzle in the air. You couldn’t avoid hearing the election being discussed. Complimentary copies of the Toronto Star were being handed out:

Once on board, I chatted up a local man who was showing a German visitor the beauty of the Muskoka district. On the financial crisis, he had a comment of considerable wisdom: “Nobody knows what’s really going on.”

Gravenhurst is in the Parry Sound riding that Health Minister Tony Clement won by a razor thin margin in 2006. We had come up from Lagoon City, in the adjoining Simcoe North riding, where Tory Bruce Stanton is fighting to hold the seat against a strong challenge from Liberal Steve Clark.

As an indication of how winnable the Liberals think Simcoe North is, Stephane Dion has scheduled a visit to Orillia for Saturday morning.

A few tourists filled out the on-board complement on the Segwun. Here’s one:

On our return to Lagoon City, the news was all about Stephane Dion’s speech in Toronto today. His best line, apparently, was:  “We need to change course, we need to change the captain, we need to change the whole crew.”

Globe and Mail editorialist Adam Radwanski, blogging Dion’s speech, had this verdict: “The right speech to give right now.”

With the polls so volatile, it’s beginning to look like we’ll watch the election results from the edges of our chairs.

We’re into a tumultuous week in Canadian politics. Seven days to go in the campaign, and we’re looking at:

• A market meltdown, a looming recession, and — at last — a hurriedly rewritten Conservative party platform
• Tightening of the polls, crippling the Tory surge that once made a Harper majority likely
• The real possibility of a fractured Parliament that could see the birth of a Liberal-NDP coalition.

Monday night, after much criticism from the Opposition parties, the blogosphere and talk show radio from coast to coast, the PM finally blinked. He admitted “significant storm clouds” are gathering over Canada, but used the alarm to suggest the Liberal party’s Green Shift would only make things worse. “We have other plans, other proposals,’ he declared, seeking to reassure worried voters.

“Too little, too late,” Stephan Dion said of the Conservative leader’s pronouncement. And the PM’s “do nothing” policy “isn’t going to do anything to protect your jobs or your savings or your pensions or the home you live in,” chimed in Jack Layton.

Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe moved the yardsticks a bit further. He wants an urgent recall of Parliament as soon as possible after the election. “We need concrete measures as soon as possible.”

Duceppe may have touched a nerve. If the Conservatives fail to win a majority but emerge with the most seats, they’d likely try to delay meeting Parliament, perhaps until into the New Year.

The polls now show Conservative support at 32 to 35 per cent – a point or two below what they gained in 2006. At this rate, they could end up with a bare third of the vote. 

Because Liberal support is also down — now between 25 and 30 per cent, say the pollsters (it was 30 per cent in the last election), it’s hardly likely they will win more seats than the Tories. 

With the NDP now hovering at 20 per cent, the Bloc at 10 or 11 and the Greens over 10, we may end up with a “House of Minorities” like nothing we’ve ever seen before.

Coalition talk heats up

Last week, I passed on Judy Rebick’s idea for a Liberal-NDP coalition, with Bloc support. It could happen. When my blog was posted on Democratic Space, several readers gave the idea their backing.

One response: “I would fully support a NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition, and I totally disagree with the premise that the Bloc wouldn’t support it; it’s there to work with the federal system for Quebec’s interests until Quebec decides otherwise.”

If the Conservatives win the most seats, Mr. Harper will be entitled to go back in, But he’ll be obligated to meet Parliament at the earliest opportunity. Which is what Mr. Duceppe was really saying.

What would it take to defeat a Harper government in Parliament?

1. A formal agreement between the Liberals and the NDP for a ”crisis coalition” to meet the the dire economic circumstances threatening to befall Canada
2. A commitment on the part of the Bloc to let such a coalition govern for a reasonable time — say, two years.

It’s almost a certainty that if Mr. Dion could craft such an arrangement, the Harper government would be toppled on a Throne Speech confidence vote. The Governor-General would have no option but to give him a chance to form the government.

It would take some convoluted, as well as tough, bargaining. Mr. Layton would be in line for Deputy Prime Minister. And perhaps to balance things out, Mr. Dion would call in his friend Elizabeth May as Minister of the Environment. If she’s not elected, there would be pressure for a Liberal in a safe riding to step down for a by-election. She’d be a cinch to win it.

As far-fetched as this scenario may sound, it’s clear that as many as two-thirds of Canadians don’t want Mr. Harper as Prime Minister. Let the market drop another thousand points, and watch the banks begin to scream for fresh capital to keep the wheels of credit turning. Nothing Mr. Harper has done so far would indicate he’s equipped to cope with such a situation.

And give a thought to this twist: If vote splitting is carried to its extreme, it’s not impossible the Bloc could end up as the Official Opposition. All the more reason for a Liberal-NDP coalition.

One thing’s sure: If the country emerges divided from the polling booths next Tuesday, get ready for the “Mother of all political battles” on the floor of Parliament.

The Economics Club of Toronto attracts the heavyweight speakers from politics and business, and so when I heard Gilles Duceppe would be speaking there, I was glad to go along to yesterday’s luncheon.

I had a chance to chat with Mr. Duceppe after his talk. He was warm, persuasive, and friendly. I joked that if he were a federalist, we’d all want to vote for him. His response: “Maybe I should open a franchise in Ontario.”

About 250 people were  at the Sheraton Centre to hear him. He said he hadn’t come to tell Canadians how to vote, but then made it clear that he was preaching to both Quebeckers and other Canadians that the Bloc represents the best opportunity to prevent Stephen Harper from getting a majority.

Our outstanding lady of letters, Margaret Atwood, was a guest at the head table and afterwards, told reporters that if she lived in Quebec she’d vote for the Bloc.

 “I’m here because Mr. Duceppe understands the contribution that culture makes to our economy. He understands $84-billion, and he understands 1.1 million jobs,” she said.

Duceppe received standing ovations both before and after he spoke, although a few remained in their seats at the end of his talk.

“Quebec is the only place in Canada that can still stop Stephen Harper,” Duceppe declared.

He stressed that the election wasn’t about sovereignty, but added:

“One day or another this problem must be solved. I’m more confident than ever that sovereignty is the best answer for Quebec and for Canada. Then, we’ll be able to go forward as two countries together.”

Duceppe reminded us of Pierre Trudeau’s declaration in 1976 that “separatism is dead.” Two months later, the PQ won its first term of office.

Duceppe talked a lot about culture, recognizing Margaret Atwood’s presence in the room.

“Not only is culture tremendously important to our national identity, but also a huge part of our economy — it’s worth $84 billion to Canada and gives jobs to a million people.” He slammed Stephen Harper’s recent remarks that “ordinary Canadians” aren’t interested in the arts.

“I’m here to defend both Quebec and Canadian cultures,” he said. “We don’t want to live on Planet Hollywood.”

I saw a few notables aorund the room, and had a chance to visit a bit with Judy Rebick, the left-wing activist and feminist who has a new book coming out soon.

In the event that the Conservatives are returned with another minority, she’d like to see an NDP-Liberal-Bloc accord that would keep Harper from forming a government. She points to the NDP-Liberal accord engineered between Bob Rae and David Peterson in Ontario in 1985 that let the Liberals govern even though the Conservatives had won the most seats in that election.

This may sound like grasping at straws, but Mackenzie King used the same tactic once federally. He governed successfully with Progressive party support when the Tories had won the most seats.

I’ll ponder Judy’s idea and maybe write about it next week.

It was a helluva debate — and far more spontaneous, lively and revealing than that dull, scripted, teleprompter-type discourse that dominated the Biden-Palin debate south of the border.

I watched 90 per cent of the debate from Ottawa, and only a couple of minutes of the farce from St. Louis. It was enough. After that, I monitored online to keep track of the U.S. debate while watching our leaders.

The Canadian debate had everybody wondering whether Stephane Dion would be able to follow up his first-class performance last night in French. He didn’t, although he did manage to shake off that nerd look he’s often struggled with. Looked younger, almost eager.

Mr. Dion struggled with English in answering moderator Steve Paikin’s first question, outlining the 30-day action plan he introduced in the French debate. Stephen Harper struck back, accusing Dion of panicking by suddenly coming out with a new platform in the middle of the debate.

“We have not been following the same policies as the United States,” he added in response to remarks by Jack Layton. “Their policies have been irresponsible … we are still creating jobs … “

“Yours is the only party that hasn’t put forth any platform to deal with the economy,” Elizabeth May charged.

“Your either don’t care or you’re incompetent,” Layton told the PM.

May kept hammering away at the PM. “You’re out of touch … your tax package cut the wrong taxes …”

Then it was Layton’s turn again. “How can you say people don’t worry about being thrown out of their jobs?” he asked the PM. “Take some responsibity here and don’t try to paper over what’s happening in people’s lives.”

The PM’s response: “We should recognize the strength of our economy. We brought in tax incentives for machinery and production equipment. “

Gilles Duceppe threw a few haymakers, too. “I don’t know how you can say you’re helping the economy by cutting taxes on companies that aren’t making any profit, they’re not paying tax.”

As the debate went on, Mr. Harper appeared to become more defensive, although he recovered fairly strongly at the end. 

The PM was harshly criticized for denying that people are suffering from job losses. “There’s a kind of cold-hearted attitude that we’re going to let everybody sink or swim,” Mr. Layton charged.

“We need to cut taxes on our savings and income and shift it (taxes) to pollution,” Mr. Dion said.

May a bright spot

Elizabeth May was at the top of her form. She demanded policies to reduce the Canadian dollar, and bring back jobs in pulp and paper, forestry, and the auto sector.

Mr. Dion’s English got better as the debate went on, but faltered toward the end, as he apparently tired.

Mr. Harper went to great lengths to argue that Canada does not face the same situaiton as the U.S. where the government is bailing out the banks because of the lack of regulation.

“We’re keeping the economy on course. We are not in the economic crisis that the U.S. is facing.”

A question on the arts brought a lot of schmaltzy answers, the corniest from Mr. Harper. He allowed as to how he plays the piano a little bit.

A light moment came when Mr. Duceppe, replying to a request from Steve Paikin to explain the first thing each leader would do as Prime Minister, said he knew he was never going to be PM. “And three of you won’t either,” he added.

Jack Layton would restore jobs, Elizabeth May fix the environment, and Mr. Dion would concentrate on protecting Canada against a financial failure.

Mr. Harper said he “would continue to manage in a time of economic uncertainty, keep the country in surplus, and not raise taxes.” The statement came off convincingly, and was one of the PM’s best moments.

The last question was from a woman who hadn’t voted in the last couple of elections. Said she was tired of politicians not keeping promises. “How can I decide which is the right person or party to vote for?”

Mr. Duceppe took advantage of the question to charge there were a lot of broken Tory promises, especially calling an election after setting a fixed election date. Ms. May said people “don’t deserve what we’ve got, we deserve better.” Mr. Dion pointed out that if Canada had followed Mr. Harper when he was Oppositioin leader, Canadian troops would be in Iraq now.

“These are difficult decisions,” Mr. Harper said. “What we tried to do was match our actions to our platform .. cut the GST, universal child care grants, accountability act …”

Mr. Layton: “The sweater is nice but you’ve got no platform in this election… Take a deep breath, and vote for us (NDP).

A good debate, but to answer the eternal question — “Did it change anybody’s mind” — it probably didn’t.

One viewer who watched the debate said she thought Mr. Duceppe “had it wrong.”

“He should be running for all of Canada, and make Canada part of Quebec.”

And Steve Paikin closed off by saying, accurately, “This was way better than Biden-Palin.”

I’m at the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto, listening to a discussion on the federal election led by two Maclean’s magazine writers, Andrew Coyne and Paul Wells. It’s the night of the French language leaders’ debate in Ottawa.

Andrew is his usual erudite self, while Paul continues to zip off amusing one-liners, as irascible as ever.

But what I find really interesting is how both are frustrated, and maybe feeling a little bitter, at how poorly the media are covering this election.

“We in the media are once again disgracing ourselves,” Andrew says. “We’re materially affecting the outcome, and we shouldn’t be doing that. We’re blowing it.”

Coyne goes on to discuss the need to radically change the way elections are run in Canada. “Tory demagoguery has been shameless. They hit the Liberal Green Plan but they don’t talk about their own plan.”

He says there’s no real difference in the cost of Dion’s Green Plan and the Tory Cap and Trade program.

Nobody understands either, because the Conservatives don’t want to talk about their scheme. Prime Minister Harper, Coyne adds, has no hidden agenda because he doesn’t have an agenda, period.

Paul rings in with a couple of zingers. He asserts that the quality of questions asked at an all-candidate meeting he attended “are way above what we ask at scrums.”

“The questions are policy-based, and the people feel strongly about the issues.” The journalists, Paul seems to be saying, don’t give a damn about the issues and merely want to ask “gotcha” questions that will stir up a meaningless headline.

The audience here is mostly university post-graduate PolSci students. They listen respectfully, and ask good questions.

Coyne makes the point that there’s little difference in the spending programs of the Conservatives and the Liberals.

“Over the next four years, total projected program spending by the Conservatives is $930 billion; by the Liberals $940 billion.”

Watching the Debate

I hurry out to catch the leaders’ debate on TV.

Harper goes out of his way to stress the different economic situation between the U.S. and Canada.

“The big challenge is to stay on the right track,” Harpert says in response to the first  question, “lower our taxes and target our spending in the interests of most Canadians.”

Elizabeth May rings in with a strong denunciation of the PM’s financial management.  Gilles Duceppe says we should re-orient the economy. Jack Layton says we need a government that understands the need to protect our jobs, savings and pensions. “The policies of Mr. Harper haven’t done that.”

Pretty good bunkum, no?

Harper concedes Canada is coming into an economic slowdown because of the situation in the U.S. “We’ve taken measures to ensure stability. In the U.S., people are losing their homes.”

Stephane Dion tells the Prime Minister: “You inherited the best economic situation of any Prime Minister. You don’t believe in the government playing a role in the economy.”

My impression is that all the leaders did pretty well. I’m not sure any voters were changed. Harper held his own against the rest; El;izabeth May shmowed well in her first outing. Duceppe, as always, is a forceful and effective advocate.

Dion has done well. He’s produced the only real headline of the debate: If he takes office, a Liberal government will launch a 30-day action plan to protect Canada’s economy from the crisis affecting the financial sector in the United States.

It’s said voters are more influenced by what they read and hear about a debate, than from actually watching it. An overnight Ipsos-Reid poll has Dion the clear winner, chosen by 40 per cent. Duceppe got the nod from 24% (I’m surprised it wasn’t higher), Harper 16%, Layton 11%, and Elizabeth May just one per cent.

The real test for Dion comes Thursday night, in the English debate. But I also want to watch Palin and Biden go at it!

Today, Neil Reynolds has a great column in the Globe and Mail, Two Streets, One Shared Destiny in which he talks about Scott Joplin’s Wall Street Rag and my upcoming book, The Ragtime Chronicles. Have a look at Neil’s piece!